|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How did Monkeys get to South America? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Engineer Member (Idle past 5516 days) Posts: 65 From: KY, USA Joined: |
quote: I don't think it will stay afloat very long unless it's all dried out like drift wood. What's going to hold the raft together when the sea storms bring rain and the rough water that comes with it? Green wood sinks rather easily too. In my experience freshly cut green trees make good cover on the bottom for fresh water fishing. Even very dry wood gets waterlogged and sinks to the bottom. I've banged up a few boat propellers on submerged timber sneaking beneath the surface. Edited by Engineer, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
You seem to think just because you cannot conceive of something then it can not be true or could not have happened.
Trees and logs can float. Up here near the Great Lakes we know all about logs floating. If you walk the shores of Lake Superior you will see massive trees washed up. Also, do you have an idea how they got the logs to the mills in the 19th and early 20th century. They floated them across Lake Superior.http://www.mnhs.org/...egister/shipwrecks/niagara/nialr.html Things float easier in salt water than they do in fresh. Well what do you know. They still float log rafts in the Northwest.
So how about that for some real evidence instead of just making unsubstantiated assumptions.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Engineer Member (Idle past 5516 days) Posts: 65 From: KY, USA Joined: |
quote: I'm offering you a chance to be famous, and outlined the scientific method you can use to prove your point. Just go back a few posts.
quote: huh what?? me thinks you are in the wrong thread. We are trying to solve the rafting puzzle.
quote: I think evolution is pretty intelligent design myself. If I was the big guy, I wouldn't want to micromanage everything.
quote: such as???
quote: I gave you the computer models already. The burden of proof is on you to prove that monkeys crossed on a raft, or have you stopped making that claim?
quote: gripe gripe gripe
quote: The only trouble is that green wood sinks. Dried out wood with no water in it floats rather well for a short time, then it sinks.
quote: The burden of proof is on he that claims a hypothesis. I have none, but you do so get busy.
quote: aww come on dude. I asked how monkeys got across and you get all fussy. There are ways to prove it and I've already given you the tools myself. I spent about 3 hours on the research in post 74, and let's see your calculations now. You can be rich and famous. You should be thanking me.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Engineer Member (Idle past 5516 days) Posts: 65 From: KY, USA Joined: |
quote: So are you proposing the monkeys on the ss africa used chain saws to cut off the leaves and branches so the flotilla wouldn't sink? Or maybe they used roaps to hold their flaotilla together like the picture:
How far out does a flotilla go into the ocean before it dismembers or sinks? Edited by Engineer, : picture added for reference
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
Only an idiot or someone trying to build a strawman would take that away from my post.
I won't lower myself to respond to the strawman.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4716 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
You might want to look into pumice rafts and sudds. They can stay afloat intact for years.
AbE:Pumice raft Edited by lyx2no, : No reason given. Genesis 2 17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness. 18 And we all live happily ever after.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Engineer Member (Idle past 5516 days) Posts: 65 From: KY, USA Joined: |
ok I'll give you one Theodore -- sorry for the hard time. Wood can float for quite a long time depending on the SG which can be as low as .5. Tree leaves, on the otherhand pose a different problem, and their bouyancy is unstable:
http://www2.hendrix.edu/...Web/labmanual/Photosynthesis.html When I was a kid I remember breaking off a rather large red oak limb while swinging out over a lake on a rope ( while I was still evolving through my tree climbing stage). Red oak is pretty dense, and it floated, but barely. It was in good daylight. After a couple of hours I pushed it under water and it sank to the bottom. I think the leaves took in water, but can't prove it. It went from floater to sinker in about 2 hours. It was right at dusk. I concluded that a tree with leaves is more likely to float during the day than during the night. Does that make sense? A floatilla of debris is going to break apart in the kind of strong ocean currents that are needed for transporation, but that's my opinion. Edited by Engineer, : No reason given. Edited by Engineer, : added time of day information regrding photosynthesis. Edited by Engineer, : dumb typo
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
Looks like you hit on a very viable and plausible answer.
From NASABiologists have also proposed pumice rafts as a way to explain how plants and animals spread from island to island in marine environments.
AlsoExplosive volcanic eruptions may create pumice rafts, that can float on the ocean for months or even years before becoming fully saturated and sinking. The larger rafts often wind up having grasses and palm trees growing on them Some were reportedly 30 kilometers wide. There seems to be a book that is a bibliography on the subject. Can't find the text online but here it is.Shop BTPS It does have a chapter called "Floating Islands and the Dispersal of Animals" So seems there have been studies on the subject. I will continue to look for more. Engineer,Maybe you should us "the google" before you discount things.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Meddle Member (Idle past 1270 days) Posts: 179 From: Scotland Joined: |
The typical explanation says South America was closer 40 million years ago -- well how much closer? As far as I can find out, the distance between Africa and South America during late-eocene/early-oligocene has been estimated as between 1000 km and 1750 km, with the distance today being 3200 km. As a comparison, the distance from the South American mainland to the Galapagos Islands is 970 km, which should give you some idea how close the continents were at this time.Distances I got from this book on primate evolution, just click on 'preview this book' and scroll down to page 117. I think this may also have been where Dr Adequate got his illustrations from. As for the potential for island hoping, the volcanic activity in the area could have given rise to suitable islands. For example I found the island of Trindade off the brazilian coast. It lies on the eastern end of a chain of submarine volcanoes which extend 1000 km from the continental shelf. Also I am a bit confused on your position on this and Noah's Ark. You suggest in Message 20 that arguments by 'evolutionists' support the ark story yet you don't explain why. For example, why did the new world monkeys traipse over an entire continent and the modern Atlantic Oceans 3200 km when their old world relatives decided to stay put, especially considering the arguments you have brought up against rafting over a relatively more moderate distance? Do you accept genetic studies which suggest that old and new world monkeys split approximately 35 Mya, or do you think it is a result of this super-hypermutation on steroids thing? Edited by Malcolm, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Engineer Member (Idle past 5516 days) Posts: 65 From: KY, USA Joined: |
In summary, if a monkey made it across from africa to south america I think the real problem was finding drinking water. After a week or so, surely a large island of floating debris in ocean waves and swirling currents would of scattered apart. I'm going to look at how the igauna got from south america to Fiji.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
I don't think you can make that conclusion at all. A childhood experience is no substitute for verifiable evidence. Pine trees and other trees float quite well. Limbs on or not.
A floatilla of debris is going to break apart in the kind of strong ocean currents that are needed for transporation, but that's my opinion. Yes that is all it is opinion. We are not discussing opinion here. We are discussing evidence. You discount all evidence presented to you and then you say in your opinion something can't be possible. Here you present another fallacy in reasoning, I'm entitled to my opinion (what is this your fifth or sixth fallacy in just this thread alone) You really should study up on logical fallacies.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4716 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
Red oak doesn't have tyloses in the vessels. Water flows through it like a straw. Bloop! Right to the bottom.
Genesis 2 17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness. 18 And we all live happily ever after.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
I gave you the computer models already. The burden of proof is on you to prove that monkeys crossed on a raft, or have you stopped making that claim? The burden of proof is not on me. Your OP expressed that you did not believe that monkeys could have rafted across the ocean, even the people you quote in the OP agree that that was how it happened. The hypothesis has been presented to you many times. You are the one that disagrees with the hypothesis and presents logical fallacy after logical fallacy. If you do not agree with the hypothesis then show an alternative. Again what is your hypothesis if you do not agree with the one given? I and no one else needs to show you how it was exactly done. It is feasible and it is plausible. Ark? Aliens? From your OP
So how did the world's animals get back to their former environments from Ararat? They just rafted..... Wow that made it a lot simpler! Yup it seems they sure did. BTW they didn't come from Ararat. You have been presented with the evidence. You have presented nothing but logical fallacies to discount the evidence. You been shown that your arguments hold little merit. Yes trees can float.Still you expect more evidence. Again you are back to a logical fallacy of negative proof. The lack of conclusive proof does not mean it is not a valid hypothesis. Yes the burden of proof is now on you. You have been shown evidence supporting the hypothesis and refuse to consider it as plausible. Therefore, it is up to you to present an alternative.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwinist Junior Member (Idle past 5516 days) Posts: 22 From: Two Rocks, Western Australia Joined: |
An inland volcanic eruption would more than likely force a group of monkeys living on the coast, into the water. Provided they survived the magma shower, a bunch of floating volcanic material would seem an appetizing alternative, as compared to staying in the water or returning to land.
Always wanting to hear other peoples opinions about God and evolution. Email me.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwinist Junior Member (Idle past 5516 days) Posts: 22 From: Two Rocks, Western Australia Joined: |
As to their water requirements, until vegetation sprouted, saltwater would taste just like normal water to a severely dehydrated monkey.
Always wanting to hear other peoples opinions about God and evolution. Email me.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024